[tlhIngan Hol] Saruman and Lurtz

[mayqel qunenoS]

DaH, jIQongnISbej.. jIQongnISmo', SoQchoH mInDu'wIj.. 'a potlhqu'mo'
QInvam ghom, jIjang 'e' vIlumQo'.

toH !

jIH;
> *lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH:
SuStel
> I wouldn't normally expect a -taH here. It's not wrong per se, but the fact that
> his speech is ongoing isn't really relevant, is it? You want to talk about the fact
> of what he said, rather than the fact of its being ongoing.

I'm happy to hear that the use of {-taH} isn't wrong here ; however I
notice that another aspect of the use of aspect is brought up ; Should
someone use aspect only for the events that are relevant, or should he
use it for all the events of a story ?

SuStel:
> Hasta lut DaDeltaH

HIja'. paqmey vIlaDbe'.

SuStel:
> Qatlhqu' Qeb joH mughmeH Qu'.

mu'mey Hutlhmo' tlhIngan Hol, Qatlhqu' Qu'vam.
'ej Doch law' Hutlhmo' tlhIngan Hol, reH jIbep. naQbe'bej tlhIngan Hol !

jIH:
> wa'DIch elves chaHpu'
SuStel:
> wa'DIch elves chaH first they were elves. elves chaHpu' they had been elves
> You don't want both together; that means first they had been elves, which
> suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being elves
> or that first they are elves for a moment.

I'm not sure I'm following here ; perhaps there is a misunderstanding
on my part with regards to what the aspect suffix {-pu'} actually
stands for.

It stands for a completed event, right ? Does that event, need to have
stopped being in effect as well ? The "orcs were elves once". That's a
completed event. "Once they were elves". Perhaps later they stopped
being elves, but during the point of time which the "once" refers to,
there was a completed event, and that event was "they being elves". I
can't understand why we can't have both the "once" and the {pu'}.

SuStel:
> See if you can apply this to the rest of your translation

maj. I'll approach this one sentence at a time, commenting only on my
chosen use of aspect suffix. I'll not comment on the words that were
chosen in order to express the original passage, since one can only
try to compensate for klingon's limited and inadequate vocabulary.

jIH:
> tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'

The {-pu'} on the {moj} was placed, because we have the completed
event "of their becoming perfectly injured"

jIH:
> lo'laHbe'pu' chaH..

Again, the completed event of their "being worthless".  Now, ok.. I
see the (possible) problem here. They continue being worthless. On the
other hand their "having been made worthless" is a completed event,
right ? It's not that they're becoming more worthless, with the
passing of time. At the time of the sentence, their "worthlessness" is
complete.

jIH:
> ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH

This stands for "beings which someone perfectly destroyed they were".
The {-ta'} on the {luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh} is for the obvious reason
that someone set out to destroy them, and eventually did it. Perhaps I
should have placed a {-pu'} on the {chaH} ? Since at the time of the
sentence their "having been perfectly destroyed" is complete, then
maybe yes, I should have written {chaHpu'}.

jIH:
> 'ach DaH povchoH chaH !

I chose to use {choH} on its own, because I remembered you had told me
once: "{choH} is a form of aspect, so one needs not place additional
aspect suffixes on a word which already has a {choH}".

jIH:
> SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ?

No aspect suffix here, because Saruman asks in general "whom do you serve?"

jIH:
> ('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!

Again, no aspect suffix here, due to the {ngugh}. "Then (at that time)
lurtz replies". Now that I'm thinking of it again, perhaps I could
place a {-taH}. "then (at that time) lurtz is replying".. However I
don't think it is important to specify that at the point of time
(which the {ngugh} describes) lurtz is (during the seconds he needs to
speak) continuously replying.

And maybe here I come to understand your initial comment on using
aspect on the relevant/important parts of a story.

Anyway, I am very interested in hearing your comments/thoughts on all this..

qunnoq

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:33 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> In a subsequent post you express doubt about your aspect suffixes. I will
> comment on them here, among other comments.
>
>
> On 8/23/2016 6:08 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
> *lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH:
>
>
> I wouldn't normally expect a -taH here. It's not wrong per se, but the fact
> that his speech is ongoing isn't really relevant, is it? You want to talk
> about the fact of what he said, rather than the fact of its being ongoing.
>
> Hasta lut DaDeltaH. paq vImaSchu'. Qatlhqu' Qeb joH mughmeH Qu'.
>
>
> chay' orcs chenmoHlu'ta' ? bISov'a' ?
>
>
> Considering the English original, "Do you know how the Orcs first came into
> being?" it seems to me that your aspect suffix here is correct. Saruman is
> asking how were the Orcs made, not how are Orcs made. It was an event.
> Completion makes sense here.
>
> Sometimes one will pluralize a foreign word using the native language's
> plurals, and sometimes one use the foreign language's plurals. You've chosen
> the latter. I'll stick with that in this reply.
>
>
> wa'DIch elves chaHpu'
>
>
> This use of an ordinal at the beginning of a sentence is still new enough to
> us that I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I accept it as
> canonical. However, you have two choices here:
>
> wa'DIch elves chaH
> first they were elves
>
> elves chaHpu'
> they had been elves
>
> You don't want both together; that means first they had been elves, which
> suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being
> elves, or that first they are elves for a moment.
>
>
>  'ach quchta' HoSwI'pu' Hurgh ;
>
>
> This one's a toughie. On the one hand, knowing my Silmarillion, I know that
> elves weren't taken by the servants of Melkor all at once; while they lived
> at Cuiviénen his shadows and spirits spied on them and waylaid them. quch
> (without the -ta') is really more appropriate.
>
> On the other hand, if you're going strictly by what Saruman says in the
> movie, you'd really have no way of knowing that. You might well think he was
> referring to a single raid in which Melkor captured a bunch of elves. In
> that case, -ta' would be appropriate.
>
>
>  joy'ta'
>
>
> Same note. joy' is more appropriate for what the book describes, but for all
> you know in the movie when Saruman speaks it could have been joy'ta'.
>
>
>  'ej
> porghchaj luQaw'ta'..
>
>
> Drop the lu-. Also, same note regarding aspect here.
>
> You might want to use rIQmoH instead of Qaw' here. I don't feel either quite
> captures mutilate, though.
>
> I'm out of time for now. See if you can apply this to the rest of your
> translation.
>
>
>  tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'.. lo'laHbe'pu' chaH..
> ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH. 'ach DaH povchoH chaH !
>
> SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ?
>
> ('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!
>
> qunnoq
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>